Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: mark expected switch fall-throughs

From: Miquel Raynal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 10:13:44 +0100

Hi Boris,

Boris Brezillon <[email-masked]> wrote on Sat, 26 Jan 2019
17:54:29 +0100:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:48:50 -0600
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > Hey Boris,
> > 
> > On 1/26/19 3:52 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:09:50 -0600
> > > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >     
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c
> > >> index 933d1a629c51..d33e15dc4cdc 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c
> > >> @@ -2251,9 +2251,10 @@ static int __init ns_init_module(void)
> > >>  
> > >>  	switch (bbt) {
> > >>  	case 2:
> > >> -		 chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_NO_OOB;
> > >> +		chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_NO_OOB;
> > >> +		/* fall through */
> > >>  	case 1:
> > >> -		 chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH;
> > >> +		chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH;    
> > > 
> > > You miss a '/* fall through */' here.
> > >     
> > 
> > Not really.  Notice that in this case the code falls through
> > to a break statement.  
> 
> Still find it weird to mandate fall through comments in all cases but
> this one...

Yes please, even if there is no GCC warning I think you can add one
here.

Thanks,
Miquèl

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel